“…The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Article [II.] Amendments to the Constitution

Gun control

America is faced with a growing problem of violence. Streets have become a battlefield where the people can be beaten for a couple dollars, where women can be brutally attacked and raped. Every day criminals try to divide territories to sell their illegal drugs, and innocent people are caught in the crossfire of drive-by shootings. We cannot ignore the damage that these criminals are doing to our society, and strong actions must be taken to stop this from happening. However, the efforts by the gun control supporters to eliminate the legal ownership of firearms do not address the real problem, and simply disarm the innocent law-abiding citizens who might need firearms for self-defense. There are three main reasons why gun control law should take firearms from hands of criminals, not law-abiding citizens, first historically legal ownership of firearms in America, second if Congress passes laws restricting ownership of firearms, as a result it will affect law-abiding people only, third statistic shows that the people who go through legal process of obtaining permits do not want to break the law.

First of all to understand the reasons of the gun control efforts, we must take a look at the history of America, and the role firearms have played in it. The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States makes firearm ownership legal in this country; it says, “… The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”(1). Firearms in the new world were used initially for hunting, and for self-defense. However, when the colonists felt that the burden of British oppression was too much for them, they picked up their personal firearms and went to war. The founding fathers of the country understood that an armed populace aided in fighting off oppression. They made the right to keep and bear arms a constitutionally guaranteed right. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms“(2).

Second, today Congress, claiming that they want to take guns out of the hands of criminals, has worked to pass legislation that would take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens instead. The point is the efforts of gun control do not address the real problem of crime. Therefore, if congress passes laws restricting ownership of firearms, as a result this will affect law-abiding people only. Criminals will continue to violate these laws, they will continue to carry their firearms, and they will that commit a crime much easier when they know that their victims will be unarmed. Unarmed victims will have small chance against an armed one. In many states, including Florida and Texas, citizens have stated that they want to keep their right to carry firearms for self- defense. Since the late 1980’s, Florida has been issuing concealed weapons permits to law-abiding citizens, and these citizens have been carrying their firearms to defend themselves against crime. The result is that the rate of violent crime has actually dropped in contrast to the national average. Previously, Florida had been leading the nation in this category, and the citizens of that state have welcomed the change (3).

Third, gun control supporters tried to claim that there would be bloodshed in the streets when these citizens were given the right to carry guns. They claimed that the cities of Florida would become the Wild West city with shootouts on every street corner, and duels over simple disagreements. These gun control supporters were wrong. More than 200,000 concealed carry permits have been issued so far, with only 36 of these permits revoked for improper use of a firearm (4). This statistic shows that the people who go through legal process of obtaining permits do not want to break the law. The people who do intend to break the law will carry their guns whether or not the law allows them to do so. Today, criminals often carry illegal weapons, such as sawed-off shotguns, machine guns; ignore the current laws that make these weapons illegal. When they are caught, the courts usually dismiss these weapons charges; prosecute for the more serious charges, like murder, that are being committed with the weapons. The gun control supporters say that the gun is demon itself, rather than deal with the criminals. This is the main flaw in their argument. The gun control supporters claim that possession of a gun can turn average citizens into bloodthirsty maniacs. This theory falls apart under close analysis. If legal possession of a firearm caused this sort of attitude, then why are crime rates highest in areas such as New York City and Washington, D.C., which have strict gun control laws? Why are crimes rates dropping in state such as Florida where private ownership of firearms is encouraged?

In conclusion, three main reasons why gun control law should take firearms from hands of criminals, not law-abiding citizens are first historically legal ownership of firearms in America, second if Congress passes laws restricting ownership of firearms, as a result it will affect law-abiding people only, third statistic shows that the people who go through legal process of obtaining permits do not want to break the law. Legal ownership of a gun does not cause crime, the same time, the laws, which make it illegal to own firearms, do little to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws only restrict people who respect the law, the people who would only use firearms for legal purposes. Criminals have fear that they can be the victims themselves, when people have the rights to own firearms and defend themselves and their families. The government must look at the problem of reducing crime in America realistically, and develop laws that would be effective. Gun control laws are neither realistic, nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, the lawmakers should direct their efforts toward controlling crime, not controlling legal ownership of firearms.